COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge McClanahan and Senior Judge Coleman 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

PAMELA RUTH HATFIELD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 1972-07-3 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 

 NOVEMBER 4, 2008 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TAZEWELL COUNTY 

Henry A. Vanover, Judge 

 Wade T. Compton (Compton & Compton, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Joanne V. Frye, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Pamela Ruth Hatfield appeals her conviction of embezzlement and argues her conviction 

violated double jeopardy principles. We disagree and affirm the trial court. 

 Hatfield was indicted in Russell County and Tazewell County for embezzlement from her 

employer, Community Health Clinic, which operated medical clinics in both counties. The 

Russell County indictment, dated February 13, 2006, charged Hatfield with embezzlement of 

property having a value of $200 or more in Russell County from April 1, 2005 through 

September 30, 2005. The Tazewell County indictment, dated February 14, 2006, charged 

Hatfield with embezzlement of property having a value of $200 or more in Tazewell County 

from April 4, 2005 through September 22, 2005. Hatfield pled guilty to the Russell County 

indictment and moved to quash the Tazewell County indictment on the ground it violated her 

constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The trial court denied her motion, and 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

Hatfield pled guilty to the Tazewell County indictment subject to her right to appeal on the 

double jeopardy ground. 

 Double jeopardy principles protect “against a second prosecution for the same offense 

after either an acquittal or a conviction of that offense and against multiple punishments for the 

same offense.” Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196, 199, 539 S.E.2d 732, 733 (2001). 

Hatfield admits she embezzled money from her employer at both the Russell County clinic and 

the Tazewell County clinic on dates during the time periods contained in the indictments. She 

argues, though, Code § 19.2-2451 allowed the Commonwealth to prosecute her wholly in Russell 

County for the embezzlement at both clinics because she took the embezzled funds from 

Tazewell County into Russell County.2 Code § 19.2-245 certainly subjects a defendant to 

prosecution in a county other than the county in which the embezzlement was initially committed 

if defendant takes the stolen property into the other county. Hatfield, however, failed to offer 

evidence to show the Commonwealth in fact prosecuted her in Russell County for property she 

embezzled in Tazewell County or that the embezzlement to which she pled guilty in Russell 

County included any property she embezzled in Tazewell County.3 And “[t]he burden is on the 

 1

 Code § 19.2-245 provides, in pertinent part, that 

if any person shall commit larceny or embezzlement within this 

Commonwealth and take the stolen property into any county or 

city other than the county or city within which the same was 

committed he shall be liable to prosecution and punishment for 

such larceny or embezzlement in any such county or city into 

which he shall have taken the property as if the same had been 

wholly committed therein. 

2

 There is no evidence in the record, however, that substantiates Hatfield’s claim that she 

took the money she embezzled at the Tazewell County clinic into Russell County. 

 

3

 At the argument on Hatfield’s motion to dismiss the Tazewell County indictment, the 

Commonwealth asserted the investigating officer’s testimony would establish “[t]he indictment 

in Russell County did not in any way deal with the funds that were taken from Tazewell 

County.” Counsel for Hatfield agreed he read the officer’s report and “that may be [his] 
- 3 -

defendant to substantiate [her] allegation [of double jeopardy] and establish the identity of the 

offenses material to [her] plea.” Cooper v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 642, 644, 414 S.E.2d 

435, 435 (1992) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Because Hatfield did not prove the 

Russell County conviction encompassed the same embezzlement for which she was indicted in 

Tazewell County, the trial court did not err in denying her motion to quash the indictment.4

 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.

 

testimony” but argued part of the embezzlement could not take place in Tazewell County and 

part in Russell County because under the statute, “it is as if it all was committed in Russell 

County.” 

4

 Although not argued in the trial court, Hatfield argued on brief and at oral argument that 

the Commonwealth’s prosecution of her in Russell County for the embezzlement in Tazewell 

County is evidenced by the fact that the Commonwealth in Russell County sought restitution for 

amounts taken in both Russell County and Tazewell County. At her sentencing in Tazewell 

County, Hatfield’s probation officer testified that with regard to restitution sought by the 

employer, the employer submitted a memorandum to the Russell County Circuit Court 

estimating a total amount taken by Hatfield in both counties combined since there was no way to 

determine how much was taken in each county. Even if the trial court in Russell County 

considered the amounts taken in Tazewell County when it sentenced Hatfield and ordered 

restitution, double jeopardy does not bar prosecution for criminal conduct previously considered 

at sentencing for a separate crime. See Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (upholding 

sentencing enhancements based on uncharged conduct). Hatfield was indicted for and pled 

guilty to taking property with a value over $200 in Russell County. Any amount of restitution 

ordered by the court in Russell County was not an element of that offense, McCullough v. 

Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 811, 568 S.E.2d 449 (2002) (amount of restitution that may be 

imposed is not an element of offense that must be proved during guilt phase of trial), and thus, 

could not bar prosecution of Hatfield for the separate offense of embezzlement in Tazewell 

County.